ILNews

New law school info session Aug. 9

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Another information session has been scheduled for the Abraham Clark School of Law, a proposed new law school in Indianapolis. The meeting, which is open to the public, is Aug. 9 at 6:30 p.m. at Springhill Suites in Carmel, 11855 N. Meridian St.

Directions to the meeting and information about the law school are available on the proposed law school's Web site, www.abrahamclarklaw.com.

To participate in this information session, the school's founder Mark Montefiori requests that attendees send an e-mail with full name and phone number to abrahamclarklaw@sbcglobal.net and include a subject line that refers to the meeting.

The information session is intended for those who would like to offer ideas for the proposed school. The last meeting for the proposed school was in July at the same location.

An article about proposed new schools in Indiana was published in the July 25-Aug. 7, 2007, issue of Indiana Lawyer and is available at http://www.theindianalawyer.com/2k7/html/detail_page.asp?content=536.

While deans of other law schools in the state said they are not opposed to the idea of a new law school, they were uncertain that there was a need for a fifth law school in Indiana.

Instead of enrolling the traditional crop of law school students, Montefiori and others at the July information session suggested that this school could serve a different market of law student. Montefiori is a businessman with 13 years of experience in higher education for working adults, including college admissions, recruitment, marketing, and strategic planning.

Currently there are four law schools in Indiana: Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis, Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington, University of Notre Dame Law School, and Valparaiso University School of Law. The University of St. Francis in Fort Wayne and Indiana State University in Terre Haute have also proposed new law schools in the past two years.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT